Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 12:23 AM
335 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
141516
17
1819Next
Author Topic:   Detecting God
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 241 of 271 (577482)
08-29-2010 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Just being real
08-29-2010 3:49 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:

Well Paul, if you were just looking for people who all agree with you and think like you then I wouldn't go to a web site entitled "Creation VERSES Evolution" if I were you. The very name implies debate...right? And if so then in a debate you will meet people who you think have really "whacked" logic. But don't you think its more productive to just tell them why you think there logic fails then it is to belittle them or to beg them to think like you? But that's just me...

And if you don't want to be criticised then a little more humility might be in order. Don't brag about logic being on your side when all you do is simply assume that you're right. Triumphailism just begs for deflation,

quote:

Well lets examine that claim and see if its true shall we?

OK.

quote:

Have we always observed that something's origin requires there be something to cause that origin? Yes.

Let us note that it is definitely false that we need a sufficient cause...

quote:

Does this logically mean that something/s always existed in order for something to now exist? Yes.

NO. You've just run into the Problem of Induction. Inductive arguments fall short of logical proofs.

quote:

Have we only observed finite things exist in a finite number? Yes.

Unfortunately our observations apply only to finite space and time. Infinite space would be expected to contain infinite matter and infinite time could certainly accommodate an infinite succession.

quote:

Therefore must the thing/s that always existed be infinite? Yes.

False. If time is finite then we do not need to invoke infinite beings.

quote:

If the infinite thing/s ever existed when no finite things existed, must it/they be self-sustaining (or at least group sustaining)? Yes.

And that includes the very point you were trying to reject. Thus you admit that you have no observations which let you reject a group that mutually sustain each other in favour of a single self--sustaining entity. So now we've looked and found that you were wrong we can move on from this point.

quote:

Please feel free to demonstrate any observations coupled with logical conclusions that support a bubble or multi-universe theory.

I don't have time to read up on a lot of cosmology just now, but let me point out that it seems to be taken seriously among cosmologists who would be a lot more familiar with the evidence than either of us. Also, if you want our universe to be really finite and have an infinite past, you actually need what you call the "bubble universe" to be true.

quote:

It's not finite because it doesn't have a real ending. It just goes on, with almost nothing happening.

FINITE: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/finite
1.having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
2.Mathematics . a.(of a set of elements) capable of being completely counted. b.not infinite or infinitesimal. c.not zero.
3.subject to limitations or conditions, as of space, time, circumstances, or the laws of nature: MAN'S FINITE EXISTENCE on earth.


Which refers to death, which as we know is the end of the person. The universe is not a person, nor actually alive so clearly that doesn't apply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Just being real, posted 08-29-2010 3:49 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Just being real, posted 08-29-2010 11:45 AM PaulK has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 242 of 271 (577503)
08-29-2010 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Just being real
08-29-2010 3:49 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
Jbr writes:

Have we always observed that something's origin requires there be something to cause that origin? Yes.
Does this logically mean that something/s always existed in order for something to now exist? Yes.

The second statement is false. The causing agent does not have to have always existed, it only needs to have existed at the moment of the cause.

Since that statement is false all of the statements that depend on it are also false.

On Infinite. Notice that you capitalized "MAN'S FINITE EXISTENCE". You do realize that has Nothing to do with the logical construct you are attempting? Man may well be finite but that has nothing to do with the topic of this universe or infinity.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Just being real, posted 08-29-2010 3:49 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 243 of 271 (577514)
08-29-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by PaulK
08-29-2010 4:10 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
Me: Have we always observed that something's origin requires there be something to cause that origin? Yes.

You: Let us note that it is definitely false that we need a sufficient cause...

Please note that the key word in my phrase is "observed." I point this out because even though you may think it is theoretically possible for something to originate without a cause, the question is have we only observed caused effects? Just saying this is false does not make it so. An example of something OBSERVED that did not require a cause by something else is required. That is because you challenged my rejection of mult-universes etc... (based on no observation) stating that the sword swings both ways. Therefore I presented you with an observation to which a refutation "with an observation" is required.

I can't respond to anything else in the list that you replied to because the point above is key to following the logic. It would be a waste of our time for me to do so. With the exception of this next comment of yours:

Unfortunately our observations apply only to finite space and time.

Again I had stated that I reject your other possibilities based on the lack of observation. In science observation is paramount. Note that my conclusion is acceptable to me because its based on observation with logic together.

I don't have time to read up on a lot of cosmology just now, but let me point out that it seems to be taken seriously among cosmologists who would be a lot more familiar with the evidence than either of us.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way Paul. If you are going to reject a whole belief system based on the off chance that some of the other "smart guys" guesses are right, don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it just a little? In your last post you accused me of being not very humble and coming across kind of superior. I am sorry if my demeanor comes off that way. But I gotta ask; say you see a man a few hundred yards away walking with a cane and dark sunglasses towards a huge cliff. If you believe he is blind and about to fall, just what tone should you use when you cry out, "STOP...CLIFF!!!"???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2010 4:10 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2010 12:09 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 245 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 1:13 PM Just being real has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 244 of 271 (577515)
08-29-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Just being real
08-29-2010 11:45 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:

Please note that the key word in my phrase is "observed." I point this out because even though you may think it is theoretically possible for something to originate without a cause, the question is have we only observed caused effects? Just saying this is false does not make it so.

At this point I have to state that you do not understand the point that you are replying to. The point is a caveat to your argument and notes that we do not need a sufficient cause i.e. a cause which entirely explains the effect.

quote:

Again I had stated that I reject your other possibilities based on the lack of observation. In science observation is paramount. Note that my conclusion is acceptable to me because its based on observation with logic together.

But your point is NOT logical. If the reason why we only observe a finite number of things is because our observation is restricted to finite space and time we CANNOT validly extrapolate those observations to either infinite space or infinite time. (Indeed since space is never entirely empty we know that we cannot validly extend it to infinite space).

quote:

Well I'm sorry you feel that way Paul. If you are going to reject a whole belief system based on the off chance that some of the other "smart guys" guesses are right, don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it just a little?

Of course I am NOT rejecting an entire worldview on that basis. I am REFUSING to reject a possibility on the grounds that the experts consider it plausible. That is a very different matter.

quote:

In your last post you accused me of being not very humble and coming across kind of superior. I am sorry if my demeanor comes off that way. But I gotta ask; say you see a man a few hundred yards away walking with a cane and dark sunglasses towards a huge cliff. If you believe he is blind and about to fall, just what tone should you use when you cry out, "STOP...CLIFF!!!"???

But you aren't doing any such thing. Instead you are offering flawed arguments, based on material you clearly don't understand. If your intent is to convince then you really really need to provide good arguments instead of trying to pass off your opinions as truths of logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Just being real, posted 08-29-2010 11:45 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Just being real, posted 08-30-2010 9:03 AM PaulK has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 245 of 271 (577528)
08-29-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Just being real
08-29-2010 11:45 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
Please note that the key word in my phrase is "observed." I point this out because even though you may think it is theoretically possible for something to originate without a cause, the question is have we only observed caused effects?

This is no more than a rehashing of the "god of the gaps" argument. Just because we do not have an answer for an "original cause" it does not compute logically that it must have been a god. There could be many answers other than a god.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Just being real, posted 08-29-2010 11:45 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Just being real, posted 08-30-2010 9:03 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 246 of 271 (577740)
08-30-2010 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by PaulK
08-29-2010 12:09 PM


Re: What counts as detection?
At this point I have to state that you do not understand the point that you are replying to. The point is a caveat to your argument and notes that we do not need a sufficient cause i.e. a cause which entirely explains the effect.

...your point is NOT logical. If the reason why we only observe a finite number of things is because our observation is restricted to finite space and time we CANNOT validly extrapolate those observations to either infinite space or infinite time.

And "at this point" I find it necessary to clarify exactly what we are both saying here. I am saying that the only things we have with which to formulate conclusions, about the origin of the universe, is what we have observed and experienced. On the other hand you seem to be saying that nothing we have experienced or observed has any baring on the subject, and therefore "anything goes." (Just so long as its not God) "But that's OK because other smart people really support it?" Is that everything in a nut shell?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2010 12:09 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2010 9:44 AM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 247 of 271 (577741)
08-30-2010 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Theodoric
08-29-2010 1:13 PM


Re: What counts as detection?
Just because we do not have an answer for an "original cause" it does not compute logically that it must have been a god. There could be many answers other than a god.

With what has been stated thus far by me, you are exactly right. But I think we don't want to walk before we crawl

I am just amazed at the opposition I am receiving at even the notion that something can not logically possibly come from nothing. I mean if whole universes can come from nothing, with absolutely no warning, shouldn't you be worried that you could have a big bang take place in your living room at any moment? There you are watching Sponge Bob and eating a bowl of cereal, and suddenly from the bowl you hear snap, crackle, BIG BANG!

Just kidding you my friend. Seriously (I like Sponge Bob) no seriously though, I can't comprehend how someone could actually entertain the notion that something did not always have to exist in order for something now to exist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 1:13 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Huntard, posted 08-30-2010 9:11 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 250 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2010 10:22 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 248 of 271 (577746)
08-30-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Just being real
08-30-2010 9:03 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
Just being real writes:

I mean if whole universes can come from nothing, with absolutely no warning, shouldn't you be worried that you could have a big bang take place in your living room at any moment?


Universes do not originate inside other universes. You have a wrong picture of this. They originate on a higher dimensional plane, if you will. You cannot use normal human experience to look at these things, that will throw you off.

There you are watching Sponge Bob and eating a bowl of cereal, and suddenly from the bowl you hear snap, crackle, BIG BANG!

This gives off the impression that you think the Big Bang was an explosion. It was not, it was a rapid expansion of spacetime itself.

Just kidding you my friend. Seriously (I like Sponge Bob) no seriously though, I can't comprehend how someone could actually entertain the notion that something did not always have to exist in order for something now to exist?

Because we have no reason to think that that is the case.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Just being real, posted 08-30-2010 9:03 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2010 5:26 AM Huntard has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 249 of 271 (577755)
08-30-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Just being real
08-30-2010 9:03 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:

And "at this point" I find it necessary to clarify exactly what we are both saying here. I am saying that the only things we have with which to formulate conclusions, about the origin of the universe, is what we have observed and experienced. On the other hand you seem to be saying that nothing we have experienced or observed has any baring on the subject, and therefore "anything goes." (Just so long as its not God) "But that's OK because other smart people really support it?" Is that everything in a nut shell?

No, that's not it. That's not it at all. As you've already admitted your argument doesn't get you to God or anywhere near. And you haven't even gotten to the really difficult parts. If your argument was any good I'd have had no problem accepting it. However it is full of problems and errors and holes. Because you have neither a good handle on the current state of the relevant science, nor logical reasoning nor even Christian apologetics.

for instance you refuse to accept that time could be finite, because your argument requires that past time is infinite. But I could point you to a web page where a Christian using "experience and observation" argues that past time must be FINITE. Because that is what the argument HE likes happens to require. (Me, I can see that you're both wrong - neither option helps).

The fact is that your argument - even the section you've presented here doesn't work. If it did I'd have accepted it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Just being real, posted 08-30-2010 9:03 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2010 5:26 AM PaulK has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 250 of 271 (577764)
08-30-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Just being real
08-30-2010 9:03 AM


Maybe you should study first
There you are watching Sponge Bob and eating a bowl of cereal, and suddenly from the bowl you hear snap, crackle, BIG BANG!

Your ignorance about what the Big Bang Theory actually states comes shining out in this statement. As Huntard explained it was not an explosion. There fore any thoughts and ideas you have about the "Big bang" are not even worth considering.

How about you do some reading and get back to us when you ahve a basic concept of what the Theory actually says.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Just being real, posted 08-30-2010 9:03 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 563 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 251 of 271 (577791)
08-30-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Just being real
08-28-2010 7:06 AM


Re: bye, bye, first cause.
Hi Oni,
I'm glad you joined the discussion.

Thanks

don't you think tracing everything back to its logical origins will eventually lead you into some very big problems if you try to stick with purely finite causes?

Personally I think applying human logic to the orgin of our universe is fallacious. It will inevitably lead to wrong answers, as it has in the past with notions of a geocentric universe and a flat earth. So I'm of the school that the evidence leads to the right answer. Currently in this field of stdy, no such answer has come about that is unanimously agreed upon - who knows if one ever will. But science and physicist will find one, given that one is available.

So for all practical purposes, me and my atoms are very finite.

What do you mean by practical? Would it shock you to know that the very atoms that make up your body have been around for possibly billions of years?

Therefore logically we have to conclude that because anything finite exists, something infinite must exist that was the original first cause of the finite.

Maybe, but even that vague statement of finite and infinites doesn't support a conscious celestial entity. To conclude god is this infinite thing you're refering to, you must have a belief in some kind of religion where you can apply their/your concpet of god to the question.

I'm confident that many if not all religions could do this. By creating the notion of infinite, and saying that this causes finite things to exist, you have easily found a gap for your god to fill.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Just being real, posted 08-28-2010 7:06 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 252 of 271 (577926)
08-31-2010 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Huntard
08-30-2010 9:11 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
You cannot use normal human experience to look at these things, that will throw you off.

And what else is there if we don't?

This gives off the impression that you think the Big Bang was an explosion. It was not, it was a rapid expansion of spacetime itself.

Actually I am familiar with both points of view, and I don't accept either, but that's a different topic, and I don't think its really relevant to my point. Does it matter to the rabbit if the fox ran to catch him or just walked really really fast?

Me: I can't comprehend how someone could actually entertain the notion that something did not always have to exist in order for something now to exist?

You: Because we have no reason to think that that is the case.

Not if your going to discount observation and normal logic... then no we don't


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Huntard, posted 08-30-2010 9:11 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Huntard, posted 08-31-2010 7:14 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 253 of 271 (577927)
08-31-2010 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by PaulK
08-30-2010 9:44 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
However it is full of problems and errors and holes. Because you have neither a good handle on the current state of the relevant science, nor logical reasoning nor even Christian apologetics.

Well come on with it then Paul, lets here the major holes with an observation based explanation that refutes it. I can take criticism if its backed by something more than just saying "No, No, No," and wagging your finger.

But I could point you to a web page where a Christian using "experience and observation" argues that past time must be FINITE. Because that is what the argument HE likes happens to require. (Me, I can see that you're both wrong - neither option helps).

So your saying that both time being infinite or finite are wrong? Interesting. So are they wrong at the same time or is one only wrong at a time depending on which suits your argument?

What if I were to suggest that in reality time itself is nothing but an illusion invented by humans? Its nothing. Time does not really exist. It is a man made invention to measure passage of space between events. You can go to china, but you can’t go to “a second ago.” That second was merely our way of expressing the passing of an event. We have chosen to express it with man made increments called seconds. We can not travel back and view past events as they are happening, because they are not “happening,” but rather have already “happened.” We may be able to record current events and view a video recording of that event in the future, and we may feel like we are in the past, but actually being there when it happened is not possible.

Looking deeper into this thing that we call time, one might say that matter is required in order for there to even be time. Some type of matter is necessary with which to judge the passing of time. For example, we humans have patterned our entire concept of time with regards to the earth’s movement, both rotationally, and also with its solar orbit. We call a “day,” the amount of time it takes for the earth to make a complete turn on its axis. And likewise a year is the amount of time it takes for the earth to make one complete orbit around the sun. Our hours minutes and seconds are also based completely on the movement of the earth. So if you were somewhere out in the deep void of space where no planets or stars existed, nothing but deep blackness, then what would you base the passing of time on? There would be nothing but you to base it on. Maybe you would base it on the number of your own inhales. You might call 17,280 inhales, “one day.” But then again you’re still basing time on the existence of matter. In this case you are that matter. Therefore, technically, in a place where absolutely no matter exists, there would be no passing of time.

Our bodies wear out and we see other finite material around us breaking down and we have a tenancy to equate these things with the passing of time, but in truth the measure of time that we invented has nothing to do with their break down. Time is only an illusion that has no meaning to someone who has no expiration date. Therefore you are in a way right, time is neither finite nor infinite. That's because it is merely a man made illusion.

So when I say, "What existed before the universe?" I am talking about existence of something that time has no meaning to. If matter did not exist then there was no time, but that does not mean an infinite entity or entities could not be self existent. Time has no relevance to the argument. The relevant point is that finite matter now exists and no observations ever made can explain its existence without invoking an infinite source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2010 9:44 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2010 6:21 AM Just being real has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 254 of 271 (577936)
08-31-2010 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Just being real
08-31-2010 5:26 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:

Well come on with it then Paul, lets here the major holes with an observation based explanation that refutes it. I can take criticism if its backed by something more than just saying "No, No, No," and wagging your finger.

What's wrong with the ones I've already pointed out ? For instance your assumption that the universe has a finite future, when in fact the matter is not settled and last I heard it leans the other way ?

Or how about the illogic in your argument that since we, as finite creatures observing a finite portion of space and time can only see a finite number of entities we should assume that the total number of entities that have ever existed is also finite, even given infinite time ? You cannot validly assume that our limitations limit reality.

And in fact we do have observations that would suggest otherwise. We know that the vacuum is not empty. Instead it is a sea of particles flickering in and out of existence. If we extend this observation into infinite time, does it not follow that there must have been an infinite number of finite entities ?

quote:

So your saying that both time being infinite or finite are wrong? Interesting. So are they wrong at the same time or is one only wrong at a time depending on which suits your argument?

I am saying disagreeing with your opinion is not the same as rejecting God. Despite your attempts to paint it that way.

We can add that in fact that we do not know if time is finite or infinite - so relying on either would be a fault in your argument. We can further add that neither option in fact offers any help to your argument.

quote:

What if I were to suggest that in reality time itself is nothing but an illusion invented by humans? Its nothing. Time does not really exist. It is a man made invention to measure passage of space between events. You can go to china, but you can’t go to “a second ago.” That second was merely our way of expressing the passing of an event. We have chosen to express it with man made increments called seconds. We can not travel back and view past events as they are happening, because they are not “happening,” but rather have already “happened.” We may be able to record current events and view a video recording of that event in the future, and we may feel like we are in the past, but actually being there when it happened is not possible.

Well the first thing I would ask you is how is this relevant ? How does it help your argument ? If time does not really exist then nothing can be temporally infinite, yet your whole argument rests on asserting that there must be a temporally infinite being. You cannot have a temporally infinite being unless time is both real and infinite.

quote:

So when I say, "What existed before the universe?" I am talking about existence of something that time has no meaning to. If matter did not exist then there was no time, but that does not mean an infinite entity or entities could not be self existent. Time has no relevance to the argument. The relevant point is that finite matter now exists and no observations ever made can explain its existence without invoking an infinite source.

Well to point out the holes in the reasoning here:

1) You are arguing now that time is finite, at least in the pastward direction. But an infinite past was the only aspect of infinity that you have argued FOR. So now we have no need to invoke an infinite being in any respect.

2) Your argument that time depends on matter is a mere assertion (and in fact false, since matter did not exist in the very earliest stages of the universe). It is far better to treat time as a dimension (like length and width) as physics does. Or alternatively we can relate time to change. You can argue that a completely unchanging entity is "timeless" in some sense. However, by definition such an entity can do nothing (since doing anything would be a change). That doesn't seem to offer any help to you, either.

3) You have offered no sound argument for an infinite source and therefore you cannot rule out a finite source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2010 5:26 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Just being real, posted 09-02-2010 6:28 AM PaulK has responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 255 of 271 (577945)
08-31-2010 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Just being real
08-31-2010 5:26 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
Just being real writes:

And what else is there if we don't?


The counterintuitive math that describes the real processes.

Actually I am familiar with both points of view, and I don't accept either, but that's a different topic, and I don't think its really relevant to my point.

There are no "both points of view", in physics it is only ever a rapid expansion of spacetime. It is relevant as to show that you know what you are talking about. The fact you "don't accpet" it goes a long way to question your knowledge on this subject, and therefore your authority in proclaiming things that are linked to it.

Does it matter to the rabbit if the fox ran to catch him or just walked really really fast?

No, but for the math to be accurate it does matter whether it was an explosion (Which ususally occurs within spacetime) or a rapid expansion of spacetime itself.

Not if your going to discount observation and normal logic... then no we don't

Which is exactly what one should do when dealing with physics like this.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2010 5:26 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
141516
17
1819Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017